Is ethanol is a boondoggle that TPP might prevent us from being able to end?

The U.S. started adding ethanol to gasoline on a nationwide mandated scale in 2006. Much of the world has followed suit in what has turned out to be a huge mistake. But there's so much politically weight behind this boondoggle to easily make it go away. What I wonder is whether this TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) could put us in a position where one day, after we finally have to wherewithal to end adding ethanol to gasoline, will we have signed onto international agreements and treaties that prevent us from doing so?

US Grains Council happy with TPP results for ethanol and corn
www.biofuelsdigest.com...

a reply to: BobbyFontaine

What else would we do with all that grain? Feed people?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: BobbyFontaine

What else would we do with all that grain? Feed people?

exactly. We have enough excess grain to almost feed the whole world...end world hunger, but ...that would make too much sense.

More ethanol, more boost--if it makes your push-rod hunk of junk fall apart, well so be it.

I have no problem putting ethanol into both my cars, and E85 is a lot higher than the ethanol content in your pump gas.

This thread is

ethanol does not act as a fuel when added to gasoline, it's more of an antifuel because of the mileage loss it causes, which is more than the 2-3% the EPA claims, more like 10% in low compression engines, which is most engines,, oil and water don't mix, so when you add water based ethanol to oil based gasoline, the hydrocarbon bond between them is very weak, so much so that even water vapor in the air intake causes the two fuels to separate resulting in greater mileage losses,, in answer to your question about what to do with all the excess grain is continuing making ethanol with it, only don't add it to gasoline, which ruins both fuels, but rather use it by itself in high compression engines that can handle it's high octane,, and if we did that, we could produce it as hydrous ethanol (with water left in after first distilling, "moonshine") rather than anhydrous where that small amount of water has to be removed before adding it to gasoline, which is a lot more feasible to produce

originally posted by: BobbyFontaine
The U.S. started adding ethanol to gasoline on a nationwide mandated scale in 2006. Much of the world has followed suit in what has turned out to be a huge mistake. But there's so much politically weight behind this boondoggle to easily make it go away. What I wonder is whether this TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) could put us in a position where one day, after we finally have to wherewithal to end adding ethanol to gasoline, will we have signed onto international agreements and treaties that prevent us from doing so?

US Grains Council happy with TPP results for ethanol and corn
www.biofuelsdigest.com...

The TPP is anything transnational corporations want it to be. It's the last power grab. Expect a big big distraction when it comes for a vote in the US. Buckle up.

a reply to: amazing

All that is removed from the corn for making ethanol are the sugar and starches. The rest (protein, fat, nutrients) remain the mash and become something called distillers dried grains. That is then feed to animals. When fed to cows, it causes a faster weight gain per pound of feed than regular corn.

That's why you don't see landfills full of spent corn.

So, the ethanol process does feed people, just not in the way you expect.

For the record, I think grain based ethanol is disastrous waste and horribly inefficient....

a reply to: BobbyFontaine

Yes most car engines can run on ethanol. But it comes at a cost. Ethanol is too strong for most car engines.

Solution:

Build combustion engines based on using ethanol primarily that can run gasoline also.

At least then it won't wear the engine down prematurely AND you get a higher performing car also.

originally posted by: bigal7997
a reply to: amazing

All that is removed from the corn for making ethanol are the sugar and starches. The rest (protein, fat, nutrients) remain the mash and become something called distillers dried grains. That is then feed to animals. When fed to cows, it causes a faster weight gain per pound of feed than regular corn.

That's why you don't see landfills full of spent corn.

So, the ethanol process does feed people, just not in the way you expect.

For the record, I think grain based ethanol is disastrous waste and horribly inefficient....

Totally agree.

You can make ethanol more efficiently though sugar cane and sweet potatoes.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: bigal7997
a reply to: st=19906976]amazing[/post]

All that is removed from the corn for making ethanol are the sugar and starches. The rest (protein, fat, nutrients) remain the mash and become something called distillers dried grains. That is then feed to animals. When fed to cows, it causes a faster weight gain per pound of feed than regular corn.

That's why you don't see landfills full of spent corn.

So, the ethanol process does feed people, just not in the way you expect.

For the record, I think grain based ethanol is disastrous waste and horribly inefficient....

Totally agree.

You can make ethanol more efficiently though sugar cane and sweet potatoes.

And you can make it even more efficiently from waste, like bad donuts, candy, bread, anything containing starches or sugars. If you pull from the waste stream, you can get paid to take their fermentables then paid to sell the byproduct while preventing valuable stuff from going to the landfill...

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: BobbyFontaine

What else would we do with all that grain? Feed people?

We could also not grow it in the first place.

-Huge waste of fresh water
-contributes to excessive land clearance from wild to farmland, whether directly or indirectly
-depletes quality soil and limited fertilizer resources such as potash
-needlessly contributes to basically all other agg related problems such as fertilizer runoff
-worse for CO2 than just using fossil fuels in the first place

It's a huge, huge loser for the environment with nothing at all to recommend it.